State of Kerala Police vs Aneesh Advocate - Nithish R Pillai (K/2485/ — 100206/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323,324,354,427. Disposed: Uncontested--AQUITTED on 26th May 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CALENDAR CASE

CNR: KLAL320009472024

Filing Number

100944/2024

Filing Date

17-Apr-2024

Registration No

100206/2024

Registration Date

17-Apr-2024

Court

JFCM Ramankary

Judge

1-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

Decision Date

26-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--AQUITTED

Last updated 21-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

803

Police Station

Nedumudy Police Station

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323,324,354,427

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Kerala Police

    Adv. Asst. Public Prosecutor, Ramankari

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Aneesh Advocate - Nithish R Pillai (K/2485/

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 26-May-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  3. 25-May-2026

    Judgement

    Case Summary: CC No. 206/2024 Decision: The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary acquitted Aneesh of all charges under IPC sections 294(b), 323, 324, 354, and 427 on May 26, 2026, finding him not guilty and ordering his immediate release. Key Reasoning: The court found the prosecution case fundamentally weak due to the complainant (PW1-Gopi) and witness (PW2-Vasumathi) turning hostile. PW1 testified he did not know the accused and had mistakenly given his name to police, while PW2 claimed she did not witness the alleged incident. The Assistant Public Prosecutor conceded that available materials were insufficient to establish guilt. The court concluded the prosecution "miserably failed" to prove the alleged offences of obscene words, voluntary hurt, hurt by weapon, criminal force to outrage modesty, and mischief causing Rs. 30,000 loss. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 25-May-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  5. 19-May-2026

    for evidence.

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  6. 21-Apr-2026

    for evidence.

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  7. 18-Mar-2026

    for evidence.

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  8. 10-Feb-2026

    for evidence.

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  9. 01-Jan-2026

    for evidence.

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  10. 25-Nov-2025

    for evidence.

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  11. 21-Oct-2025

    for evidence.

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  12. 23-Sep-2025

    No sitting notified

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  13. 13-Aug-2025

    for evidence.

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  14. 03-Jul-2025

    To summon witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  15. 10-Jun-2025

    For framing charge

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  16. 05-May-2025

    Appearance of Accused

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  17. 15-Mar-2025

    Hearing on Charge

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  18. 03-Feb-2025

    Hearing on Charge

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  19. 12-Dec-2024

    Hearing on Charge

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  20. 27-Sep-2024

    Hearing on Charge

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  21. 07-Aug-2024

    Hearing on Charge

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  22. 20-Jun-2024

    For Bail

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  23. 03-Jun-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 17-Apr-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 100206/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC No. 206/2024 Decision: The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary acquitted Aneesh of all charges under IPC sections 294(b), 323, 324, 354, and 427 on May 26, 2026, finding him not guilty and ordering his immediate release. Key Reasoning: The court found the prosecution case fundamentally weak due to the complainant (PW1-Gopi) and witness (PW2-Vasumathi) turning hostile. PW1 testified he did not know the accused and had mistakenly given his name to police, while PW2 claimed she did not witness the alleged incident. The Assistant Public Prosecutor conceded that available materials were insufficient to establish guilt. The court concluded the prosecution "miserably failed" to prove the alleged offences of obscene words, voluntary hurt, hurt by weapon, criminal force to outrage modesty, and mischief causing Rs. 30,000 loss. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case